|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1011
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Peter Webb wrote: Well, he has produced zero so far. Hopefully he will post his equations and their derivations. If he is having problems solving his triple integrals, I am sure somebody here can help. It obvious I have the solution if I rendered a graph. No, it means you entered something into a plotting program. Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used to plot it is wrong. We might be able to: * Provide a full, analytic solution using techniques unknown to Phil (nobody know every single trick for solving integrals) * Provide a full, analytic solution for some special cases, such as highly symmetric configurations of masses (eg spherically symmetry as Schwartzschild did for GR, or 2D solutions only) Even if we can't do this, we/I can definitely provide a numeric solution for specific test configurations that have already been experimentally tested. Its then simply a matter of looking at a few experimental results, and seeing how well FR agrees with what is actually observed, and we can see if FR is complete crap or if Bouchard is a genius. I await his formulas, and an opportunity to practice my calculus skills. The following integration should be very easy: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili.../fr-test-1.pdf That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does not read anything before wandering off into his delusions. It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading a text box. But I do have an interesting question that follows. Why is phil happy being wrong? |
#1012
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: No, it means you entered something into a plotting program. Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used to plot it is wrong. The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light factors. Well, no they do not represent the inside the sphere solution. This is a standard textbox equation and you are just looking pretty silly in ignoring it and presenting something totally unrelated. That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does not read anything before wandering off into his delusions. It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading a text box. Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already know. Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing: http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1 Why is phil happy being wrong? It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder. |
#1013
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: No, it means you entered something into a plotting program. Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used to plot it is wrong. The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light factors. That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does not read anything before wandering off into his delusions. It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading a text box. Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already know. No, what reasons are those? Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing: http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1 You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason, lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him. Why is phil happy being wrong? It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder. As opposed to FR which is just one blunder. |
#1014
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Apr 18, 12:46*pm, doug wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: No, it means you entered something into a plotting program. Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used to plot it is wrong. The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light factors. That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does not read anything before wandering off into his delusions. It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading a text box. Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already know. No, what reasons are those? * Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing: http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1 You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason, lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him. Have you noticed he only references vehemently anti-Einstein literature? How long till he stars ranting about Crothers? That'll be fun. I find it - to no end - quite personally amusing that a CS guy with a minimum of education in physics and mathematics managed to find (!) and read (!!) one of Einsteins original books on the subject, and so completely misunderstand it. And to simultaneously have the arrogance and stupidity to not pick up another book! Plus he doesn't understand spherical coordinates. Which is funny. Why is phil happy being wrong? It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder. As opposed to FR which is just one blunder. |
#1015
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Eric Gisse wrote: On Apr 18, 12:46 pm, doug wrote: Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: No, it means you entered something into a plotting program. Also, since we know the plot is wrong, whatever you used to plot it is wrong. The 3 plots are right because they all represent the inverse square distance only and disregard the gravitational constant or speed of light factors. That is pretty funny. It shows what happens when phil does not read anything before wandering off into his delusions. It is a mystery why phil prefers looking ignorant to reading a text box. Einstein is only some hoax used for various reasons you probably already know. No, what reasons are those? Read the references at the bottom, they are quite amusing: http://books.google.com/books?id=t31OZpCCPf0C&pgis=1 You see that there are lots of cranks like you. For some reason, lots of cranks hate Einstein and are jealous of him. Have you noticed he only references vehemently anti-Einstein literature? How long till he stars ranting about Crothers? That'll be fun. I find it - to no end - quite personally amusing that a CS guy with a minimum of education in physics and mathematics managed to find (!) and read (!!) one of Einsteins original books on the subject, and so completely misunderstand it. And to simultaneously have the arrogance and stupidity to not pick up another book! Plus he doesn't understand spherical coordinates. Which is funny. Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without falling down. Why is phil happy being wrong? It turns out the Schwartzchild radius error doesn't seem the change much in FR, except from the fact this radius remains an official blunder. As opposed to FR which is just one blunder. |
#1016
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without falling down. Well I submitted the question I was asked for and I am expecting the same graph. You have all the resources in the world so I do not see why intimidation is the only solution you can pull out. |
#1017
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
[...] Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim (without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect. Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity. Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students. You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's surface. Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts. You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those attempting to give you some guidance. The big question, is why this behavior on your part? Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on evidence only in those cases. You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml |
#1018
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Apr 18, 4:17*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote: [...] * Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special * relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics * problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim * (without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the * Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect. Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity. * *Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students. You know what repeating crank talking points makes you? A crank. * You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate * the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in * the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above * the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's * surface. Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts. * You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on * USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those * attempting to give you some guidance. * The big question, is why this behavior on your part? Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on evidence only in those cases. *You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions:http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml SR isn't a theory of particles. Try something relevant. Anyone buy your book yet, phil? |
#1019
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: Well, spherical coordinates is math not cs. His flailing is pretty funny. He cannot be serious and be smart enough to walk without falling down. Well I submitted the question I was asked for and I am expecting the same graph. You have all the resources in the world so I do not see why intimidation is the only solution you can pull out. Pointing out your mistakes is not intimidation. That is what teachers are supposed to do to help students. You have been making very elementary mistakes and I am trying to help you not look so stupid. For instance, the inside the sphere solution is taught in basic physics classes and in E&M. You prefer to look stupid rather than study. That is your choice. |
#1020
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: [...] Concerning special relativity, you have neither studied special relativity, nor are you able to work any special relativity physics problems, say from a junior level textbook. Furthermore, you claim (without any merit) that some of the derived equations of the Lorentz transform, in particular, are incorrect. Lorentz transformations was irresponsibly applied to Special Relativity. More ignorance from phil. You really have no idea of how relativity was developed at all. Annalen der Physik wasn't any better in publishing idiocies having no reference, plagiarized and written by unknown students. You haven't a clue about general relativity, and cannot calculate the effects on satellite clocks, nor understand the differences in the relativistic effects on satellite clocks at, say 202 km above the earth's surface as compared to, say 20000 km above the earth's surface. Doug's intimidation seems to affect evidence of the previous posts. Pointing out your mistakes is helping you. I have no idea why you consider it intimidationn. Maybe you want to go cry to your mother about it. You ignore the excellent resources provided to you by posters on USENET, and display defiant, obstinate behavior toward those attempting to give you some guidance. The big question, is why this behavior on your part? Well there are many misleading cranks around so you have to rely on evidence only in those cases. You seem to silently dismiss the K Meson Decay rate which do not fit with the current predictions: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml You have not understood what was said in the article. It is clear you do not understand statistics either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism: Review Request | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 519 | September 25th 12 12:26 AM |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 10:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 10:00 PM |
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | January 1st 09 04:20 PM |
BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 13th 08 01:05 PM |